Join our Newsletter
If you like The NakedJournal, you'll enjoy my weekly newsletter about deconstruction, freedom, and life in general.
Tony Jones on Mark Driscoll: What came first, the thug or the theology?
This drawing is inspired by the Ouroboros Snake... of the snake eating its own tail.
What came first? The chicken or the egg? What came first? The thug or the theology? I read Tony Jones' thoughts on Mark Driscoll.
Jones has always admired Driscoll, maybe envies him a little, wants the best for him, believes he can be redeemed, and suggests that things can be restored.
What I found most interesting though is that Jones believes the problem with Driscoll is theological.
- He titles his post is "Thoughts about Mark Driscoll"
- He talks about the "heady" days of publishing and speaking.
- He dismisses his disturbing personality traits by his use of the word "sure".
- He says it isn't a moral issue (evil) but that he is passionate.
- He says more than once that Driscoll is "extremely smart" or "brilliant".
- He suggests that he will "see" (as in "think"?) his way out of this.
- He writes that Driscoll has just embraced a toxic version of theology.
- He hopes that Driscoll will turn away from this toxic theology.
- He concludes therefore that Driscoll is not the problem, but his theology.
But my question is‚ What came first? The thug or the theology?
That is, did Driscoll become the focus of concern because of his theology? Or was it because of his behavior?
I'm concerned that Jones' post reflects the refusal of the church to understand spiritual abuse. It neglects the pathology of its abusive leaders. I don't think this is being fair to the victims or the perpetrators of spiritual abuse. People are victims of not just a bad theology, but a pathological cruelty.
I don't think Driscoll's theology made this happen. Driscoll "embraced" his toxic version of theology because it aligned with his moral compass. It fit his personality. It worked for him to achieve his goals. Then it manifested the worst in him. Then he continued to develop his toxic theology in order to make more room for his pathological behavior. Mars Hill Church too.
Jones' sentence, "It could have happened to any of us." is true, because I believe we all participate in this dynamic. Theology is our creation. It is a reflection of our drives and desires.
Then, not satisfied to only be the product of our drives and desires, it also becomes the producer of them. Theology is a vicious cycle of our desperate need to understand and control our universe.
Step into this cycle at any point and you can see that we are both the root and fruit of our theology and pathology.
And yes, it spins out of control by manifesting itself in toxic, controlling, and abusive behavior. Nothing can be done about bad theology because of free thought and speech.
But we can do something when this manifests itself in bad behavior. Cruel theology is a nuisance. Cruel behavior is unacceptable.
When Driscoll thinks bully to his people, we can say please stop. But when he actually bullies people, we can step in and say you will stop now!
I don't think this is a theological issue. I think it is a pathological one. Not just for Driscoll and Jones, but for the entire church.
If we would be healed, our theology would take care of itself.
1080 comments
Here’s an excellent critique of what’s wrong with Tony Jones’ and others response from Wenatchee the Hatchet, a name given to an anonymous blogger who is without a doubt the #1 source for insider dirt re MHC. http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/09/more-thoughts-on-what-some-call.html
Hypothetically, if you KNOW you have a serious mental issues….step down. That’s my point. I’m sure people have given feedback somewhere along the lines to these individuals and they know that they are “difficult,” “hard to work with,” “rageful,” “arrogant.” To pretend none of that has any correlation with you and your own untreated issues, and to let “bad behaviors” go unchecked, is what I find disgusting. Others riding on the coat tails of these “minor celebrities” in a very small fish bowl of life…say and do nothing because of their own self interest. book deal. speaking gig. it’s rather disgusting. the closest thing I ever got as an apology was from a SF, CA EC leader who treated me reprehensibly said, “some of what you said may be right.” walk the talk or don’t talk and certainly do not point a finger when your hands are filthy.
Jane – your spot on re your assessment – by default a sociopath has narcissitic traits but often narcissists can be “managed” if you to present concepts to them in ways that reflect good on their character. Dealing with them is definitely draining psychologically and it’s best to avoid them when possible. I would also note though that there have been sociopathic tendencies present in some of the US emergent church’s cyberbullying tactics and offline behaviors as well.
Just as an FYI – I tend to say “someone displays sociopathic tendencies” rather than calling them a sociopath outright because one can get sued for libel/slander for making a mental health diagnosis if one is not a trained professional. And if one is a trained professional then obviously releasing a diagnosis without a court order is grounds to have one’s license revoked and more. Driscoll and the US emergents are known for gaslighting their critics so one tries not to give them any ammunition they can actually use. :)
*step down
Becky Garrison…nailed it. It’s mental illness. If you have a known and documented serious personality disorder (NPD) that has been diagnosed through exhaustive testing by an experienced and highly regarded clinical psychologist…then you need to stop down, and shut up.